American journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Network Meta-analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula Accuracy in 1016 Eyes With Long Axial Length.
Систематический обзорСтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ma Yiyuan, Xiong Ruilin, Liu Zhenzhen, Young Charlotte Aimee, Wu Yue, Zheng Danying, Zhang Xinyu, Jin Guangming
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature and quantitatively synthesize the currently available evidence to compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with long axial length (AL).
DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and June 2022. Included were prospective or retrospective clinical studies reporting the following outcomes in cataract patients with long AL (ie, ≥26 mm): percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D). Network meta-analysis was conducted using R software (version 4.2.1).
RESULTS: Ten prospective or retrospective clinical studies, including 1016 eyes and 11 calculation formulas, were identified. A traditional meta-analysis showed that for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 and ±0.50 D, the Olsen, Kane, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) all had insignificantly higher percentages compared with others. Considering the percentage of eyes with PE within ±1.00 D, the original and modified Wang-Koch adjustment formulas for Holladay 1 (H1-WK and H1-MWK) and EVO formulas showed superiority, but the difference was insignificant. This network meta-analysis revealed that compared with the widely used Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, the Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas had higher percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D (all odds ratios >1 but P >.05). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 D, the Olsen (96.4%), Kane (77.5%), and EVO (75.9%) formulas had the highest probability of being in the top 3 of the 11 formulas.
CONCLUSIONS: The Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas may perform better than others in calculating IOL power in eyes with long AL. Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty in this regard and the accuracy of these formulas in highly myopic eyes should be confirmed in studies based on large multicenter registries.
DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and June 2022. Included were prospective or retrospective clinical studies reporting the following outcomes in cataract patients with long AL (ie, ≥26 mm): percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D). Network meta-analysis was conducted using R software (version 4.2.1).
RESULTS: Ten prospective or retrospective clinical studies, including 1016 eyes and 11 calculation formulas, were identified. A traditional meta-analysis showed that for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 and ±0.50 D, the Olsen, Kane, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) all had insignificantly higher percentages compared with others. Considering the percentage of eyes with PE within ±1.00 D, the original and modified Wang-Koch adjustment formulas for Holladay 1 (H1-WK and H1-MWK) and EVO formulas showed superiority, but the difference was insignificant. This network meta-analysis revealed that compared with the widely used Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, the Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas had higher percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D (all odds ratios >1 but P >.05). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 D, the Olsen (96.4%), Kane (77.5%), and EVO (75.9%) formulas had the highest probability of being in the top 3 of the 11 formulas.
CONCLUSIONS: The Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas may perform better than others in calculating IOL power in eyes with long AL. Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty in this regard and the accuracy of these formulas in highly myopic eyes should be confirmed in studies based on large multicenter registries.